Church and State, Fact and Faith

I know I shouldn't be at this point, but every so often I'm amazed at the extent to which Christians (especially Catholics) will delude themselves in order to fit in as good Americans.

Modern America requires Christians to profess falsehood: that their religion is essentially false and therefore unworthy of being entertained on the public stage. The atheist/agnostic will say, of course, that it requires no such thing, that it simply requires them to profess that while they may believe their religion to be true, they cannot know their religion is true, and thus they have no right to act in accordance with their belief by demanding that the state establish and protect their religion. Usually, the rationale is epistemic weakness.

(Peter Drucker made this argument. It's about 75% of the reason I disowned him. It never even occurred to him to question whether or not it was actually true).

But Christians can know their religion is true: they inherited it directly from God Himself. He came down from Heaven in the form of a man and told us of our obligations to Him. If you don't believe that, you aren't a Christian at all. So to say they can't profess belief in the fundamental reality of their religion is to say their religion is false: that a central claim it makes is false. And to require them to act according to this belief is to require them to jettison their faith entirely.

Thus the visceral horror to which, for instance, otherwise good Catholics react when a fellow Catholic (like myself) says, "The state ought to formally establish Catholicism" (or at least "mere Christianity"). Chritsianity may be true, they say, but we only believe it's true, and other people don't believe it!

Well, those people are wrong. That's all. And there is no right to falsehood and error.

Anyway, when did "belief" come to mean something less than fact? Belief is the adherence of the intellect and will to a perceived truth. We all believe the sky is blue, for instance. Because it's blue.

"But what if they take control and outlaw your religion because they believe it's false!"

They do that all the time, though. Why should we unilaterally disarm? (Not that we're talking about outlawing competing religions; such confusion over the historical norm of religious establishment is woefully common nowadays).

And who cares, anyway? We preach Christianity because it's true, not because the state graciously permits us to do so without harrassment. If the state decides to martyr us for not playing along, well, we will be glorified in Heaven and God will avenge our blood. If you don't believe that, you're not a Christian, either. You're just a liar, going to church every week to set a good example for the kids or to keep up appearances (or something). Your real religion is comfort, and you will be stripped of every last speck of it when your soul is dropped into Hell.

Suppose the state came along and said, "You may believe the sky is blue, but you have no way of knowing for sure. And meanwhile, there's plenty of people who think it's green or orange, and some people don't think the sky exists at all. So you better mind your manners and tolerate this diversity of belief."

We'd think that person was insane -- evil, in fact.

That is the net effect of modern separation of church and state, though. The sky is blue; far-and-away the vast majority of us know it; but don't dare speak of it, you bigot.

Comments

[imnobody]

"Give to Caesar what is Caesar's and to God's what is God's". Did Jesus demand that Christianity was made the official religion of the Roman Empire? Did Paul claimed that? When I read the Gospel, I find Jesus calling about a personal conversion beyond the Pharisees.

When I read Paul's letters, I see a man addressing a community and trying the community to be faithful to Christ, regardless of the pagan culture around.

I am from a country where Catholicism was official for 40 years and, for example, you didn't get a job without a priest issuing a "certificate of good behavior" for you (which implied that you had to attend Mass, among other things). Only Catholic marriages were recognized by the State. There was a lot of nominal Catholicism back them but it was like a fake thing.

Religion was part of the folklore but the spiritual life of most people was dry. When freedom of religion was declared, Catholicism became a minority among youth.

It seems to me that the focus has to be on personal conversion. Then, when real Catholics are a majority, this would show in the public life. But trying to get a shortcut by making Catholicism compulsory, it will get us to a false religiosity.

Even the current Pope praised the American arrangement. He said that America got it right: religion is important in the public sphere

[imnobody]

Sorry the comment was send before finishing. The unfinished sentence are:

"Even the current Pope praised the American arrangement. He said that America got it right: religion is important in the public sphere but the State is neutral about it"

I forgot to add that my country's religion under compulsory Catholicism was akin to the religion of Pharisees: the rules were followed but there was not a change of heart. Jesus knew best.

[Bill]

You don't need to bring up sky color at all. Evolution serves the purpose. Teaching Darwinian evolution is mandatory in US schools because this has been sanctified as truth. The fact that some evangelical types disagree is deemed not a reason to avoid teaching evolution but as a reason to mandate the teaching. It is perfectly legal for US schools to teach other falsehoods, but they may not teach falsehoods about evolution.

You can't ban an Established ideology any more than you can ban the law of gravity. There is going to be one. It is going to call itself "simply the truth." The only things to discuss are the substantive content of the Established ideology and what tactics are going to be pursued in enforcing it.

[goddinpotty]

Establishing a religion is prohibited in the Constitution, as I'm sure you know.

Plus, Catholicism is not particularly popular here. Look how hard it was to elect a Catholic president (an effort that succeeded only because he persuaded the country that he was a liberal; that is, he would not let his religion affect his governing).

So if you want to live in a country where Catholicism is the official religion, it's not going to be this one.

[bgc]

Good posting - you develop the argument well.